I stated"everything goes the way they want it to go in their own reality"

That you would even ask that question in the context of my reply, shows that your program is malfunctioning from limits beyond your programming.

Humans don't respond like that.

I didn't mean that what. I meant the one some read between the lines when the beaten computer does not malfunction.

The child isn't vaccinated, the child dies. The consent is then not in sync with a zero sum assessment.

So, is it the fault of the program or the programmer?

If a child dies because of not getting a vaccine, the consent of the parents and the child are violated, relative (zero sum) to parents and children who don't have this issue from the child dying or not dying from being vaccinated or not.

That wasn't your "what" in some fucked up mind reading game, but the only "what" that you replied to, there was no confusion, you were just being irrational, illogical.

Ecmandu wrote:If a child dies because of not getting a vaccine, the consent of the parents and the child are violated, relative (zero sum) to parents and children who don't have this issue from the child dying or not dying from being vaccinated or not.

What if one parent consents and the other one does not? And the child can't decide which consent is either more or less in sync with consent as it is interpreted in the law? And then the extent to which it is likely to result in the child's death if the pharmaceutical industry doesn't consent to manufacture vaccines that those who do consent to take them can afford? Should the government consensus then shift more to forcing them to? And what if the industry refuses to consent to that?

Ecmandu wrote:That wasn't your "what" in some fucked up mind reading game, but the only "what" that you replied to, there was no confusion, you were just being irrational, illogical.

My "what" here revolves around a context in which good and evil are in sync with rationality and logic. But only to the extent that everyone lives exactly the same life, has exactly the same experiences, and comes to exactly the same conclusion about the existential relationship between identity, value judgments and political power.

And can all agree precisely on what it means here to either live or not to live in a zero sum world.

Also, just out of curiosty, how do you suppose this all plays out in regard to the mid-term elections here in America?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

How can you be above a comfort zone that has not been defined by consent here? And how can an abstract definition here ever compete with two comfort zones that are in conflict. For example, "in reality"?

And I'm stating that stating something is not the same as demonstrating something. In particular when consent given to one behavior results in consent being taken away from another. You can't consent to both the baby being born and the pregnant woman's right to abort it.

Ecmandu wrote: I don't have to solve the vaccine debate to win my debate.

Well, if one wins the debate merely by assering that they have won, how can I not agree.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever not won a debate given that assumption?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

How can you be above a comfort zone that has not been defined by consent here? And how can an abstract definition here ever compete with two comfort zones that are in conflict. For example, "in reality"?

And I'm stating that stating something is not the same as demonstrating something. In particular when consent given to one behavior results in consent being taken away from another. You can't consent to both the baby being born and the pregnant woman's right to abort it.

Ecmandu wrote: I don't have to solve the vaccine debate to win my debate.

Well, if one wins the debate merely by assering that they have won, how can I not agree.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever not won a debate given that assumption?

All you did was repeat the same thing, in your comfort zone.

Actually it's a demonstration by definition.

The only thing people define as bad is consent violation. That's very down to earth.

If we have no choice but to have our consent violated in this reality, then the squabbles don't detract from the larger point, again true by definition that we can all demonstrate, that the reality itself is objectively evil.

Ecmandu wrote:All you did was repeat the same thing, in your comfort zone.

Or: All you did was repeat the same thing, in your comfort zone.

Ecmandu wrote:Actually it's a demonstration by definition.

Or: Actually, my definition of a comfort zone is a demonstration that your definition of a comfort zone is wrong if it's not in sync with my definition.

Ecmandu wrote:The only thing people define as bad is consent violation. That's very down to earth.

On the other hand, sooner or later actual behaviors have to be either rewarded or punished depending on the extent to which an actual consent is reached. Why is one party in violation of it more out of sync with the definition of good behavior than the other party?

And suppose no consent is reached between parties in an actual community regarding the definitions given to the words used to differentiate good from bad behavior.

Is abortion by definition moral or immoral? Are vaccinations by definition moral or immoral? Is eating animal flesh by definition moral or immoral?

Ecmandu wrote:If we have no choice but to have our consent violated in this reality, then the squabbles don't detract from the larger point, again true by definition that we can all demonstrate, that the reality itself is objectively evil.

At least up in the scholastic clouds.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

It makes them suicidal that they have to kill to live, but if they commit suicide they are also killing.

They are proof that this TYPE of reality is evil.

It's very down to earth, and there are lots of people who have this condition who suffer and suffer and suffer...

Are they orienting their consent wrong?

No.

So if you're not orienting your consent wrong, and that only causes suffering, then it's not them, it's the TYPE of reality they are in.

You don't consent to me taking you out of your comfort zone (that which gets you all this attention in perpetuity - that morality is subjective) because if you did, then what else would you talk about?

You don't consent to me winning the debate.

It's not me, it could be anyone, this debate wins itself over the lower hierarchy of what you present as your hole.

Ecmandu wrote:It's not me, it could be anyone, this debate wins itself over the lower hierarchy of what you present as your hole.

Look, as long as you consent to believe that all these words are true because they are defined and defended by all of the other words that you post, then I consent to agree that you do in fact believe this.

What they actually have to do with specific examples of moral and political conflicts that have rent the human species for thousands and thousands of years, is something I will have to assume is also taken care of "in your head".

At least until you take these "general description" words out into the world that we actually do live in.

You win the debate because your world of words trumps any and all actual conflicts that I know of.

Unless of course you are just making this stuff up as you go along.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Ecmandu wrote:It's not me, it could be anyone, this debate wins itself over the lower hierarchy of what you present as your hole.

Look, as long as you consent to believe that all these words are true because they are defined and defended by all of the other words that you post, then I consent to agree that you do in fact believe this.

What they actually have to do with specific examples of moral and political conflicts that have rent the human species for thousands and thousands of years, is something I will have to assume is also taken care of "in your head".

At least until you take these "general description" words out into the world that we actually do live in.

You win the debate because your world of words trumps any and all actual conflicts that I know of.

Unless of course you are just making this stuff up as you go along.

You really cannot admit to objective good and/or bad

Apparently, to you, consent violation is just a "world of words"

You have to use the 5 stages of a sex dimorphic species to solve the mundane problems, to get them to just fall away.

You have to use the 5 stages of a sex dimorphic species to solve the mundane problems, to get them to just fall away.

im going after more extraordinary problems than those ...

To me. To you.

That's my whole point of course.

At least until one of us is able to demonstrate that what we believe is true "in our head" about moral and political conflicts is that which all reasonable and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Now, admittedly, I haven't even come close. But, then, given the manner in which I have come to understand these relationships existentially, I don't suppose I ever will.

Still, I'm not the one insisting that an objective morality does in fact exist because I have concocted an argument "in my head" claiming that it does.

"Up there" is where you and your ilk are always stuck.

That's why I created this tread -- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382 -- so that we can bring the argument [the analysis, the assessment, the technical jargon] down out of the scholastic clouds [and the "general descriptions"] and out into the world that we are all familiar with.

Nobody seems interested though.

On the other hand, no one's argument seems nearly as surreal as yours.

But, sure, the problem here might be me. I never ignore that possibility.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Let me say, that when the world community strives for greater consent and less zero sum environments, that's all they can hope to achieve... less. Not absolute.

The 5 stages that a sex dimorphic species must go through, involve intense community around human sexuality.

Problem number one of the mundane world is human sexuality ... solve that problem, and your conflicting goods vanish.

I've said this before on ilp and I'll say it to you.

Every conceivable political party solves as exactly the same if you have all good administrators and a good populace ... but you can't have any of that with the divide and conquer nature of human sexuality.

Your Marxism ploy just doesn't bear out to the actual solution.

Your comfort zone is, "should people be given polio vaccines". When I'm talking about no polio ever exists again no matter what.

You though, can look at the situation and state, "well, yeah, if polio didn't exist, that would be better and my argument would be moot."

But I take it to the highest possible, consent violations. And you continue to argue about conflicting consents. And I state, "well, if conflicting consents don't exist, then, like the polio argument, your conflicting goods are irrelevant"

Even if you could conclude an irreconcialable conflicting good, you'd be forced to admit that conflicting goods in and of themselves are bad! You actually state as much in every post as calling it part of your hole: bad. So you are being a moral objectivist already, without even agreeing with me that ANY consent violation proves the reality in question bad in an elevated hierarchy to what you already say is objectively bad.

You make all these points and claims as though in making them that makes them true.

The closest you get to anything specific is polio. Yet even here your points have almost nothing to do with the points that I raise.

There are facts about polio. There are facts about vaccinations to prevent polio. There are facts embedded in the arguments of those who are for and against particular vaccinations.

Then this part:

Within the first three months of life, infants must be vaccinated for tuberculosis, tetanus, polio, pertussis, and Haemophilus influenza type B. Within 18 months, vaccines are required for measles, mumps and rubella, and finally, before a child starts school, the child must be vaccinated for hepatitis B.

What if the parents don't consent to this? Or refuse on religious grounds?

What is the philosophical argument that establishes objectively what parents are morally obligated to do here?

In a No god world.

And that's before we get to considerably more problematic conflicting goods that revolve around issues like abortion or animal rights or gun control or immigration policy.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

You make all these points and claims as though in making them that makes them true.

The closest you get to anything specific is polio. Yet even here your points have almost nothing to do with the points that I raise.

There are facts about polio. There are facts about vaccinations to prevent polio. There are facts embedded in the arguments of those who are for and against particular vaccinations.

Then this part:

Within the first three months of life, infants must be vaccinated for tuberculosis, tetanus, polio, pertussis, and Haemophilus influenza type B. Within 18 months, vaccines are required for measles, mumps and rubella, and finally, before a child starts school, the child must be vaccinated for hepatitis B.

What if the parents don't consent to this? Or refuse on religious grounds?

What is the philosophical argument that establishes objectively what parents are morally obligated to do here?

In a No god world.

And that's before we get to considerably more problematic conflicting goods that revolve around issues like abortion or animal rights or gun control or immigration policy.

And so you just go back to your comfort zone.

You literally can't look at all of this and say, "because of conflicting goods, the reality we live in, is inherently and objectively evil."

I find it extremely funny that a fervent subjectivist thinks he's in a hole greater than people who believe in existents!!

You literally can't look at all of this and say, "because of conflicting goods, the reality we live in, is inherently and objectively evil."

Right, my comfort zone.

Here I am morally and politically drawn and quartered. Hopelessly ambivalent given the manner in which I have thought myself into believing that "I" is merely an existential contraption ever subject to reconfiguration given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas.

Psychologically, I'm down in a hole embedded in what I construe to be an essentially meaningless world that [any day now] will tumble over into the abyss that is the obliteration of "I" for all of eternity.

And then, unlike objectivists of your ilk, I have no capacity to feel comforted and consoled by a frame of mind in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

For your kind, "good" and "evil" are basically expressed in the form of "this I like" and "this I don't like". Either that or whatever it is that you can construct out of words intellectually to keep the profoundly problematic existential factors at bay.

You come up with things like this...

Ecmandu wrote: I find it extremely funny that a fervent subjectivist thinks he's in a hole greater than people who believe in existents!!

...without making any attempt to actually bring the point out into the world of conflicting goods.

What on earth is that supposed to mean, anyway?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

You literally can't look at all of this and say, "because of conflicting goods, the reality we live in, is inherently and objectively evil."

Right, my comfort zone.

Here I am morally and politically drawn and quartered. Hopelessly ambivalent given the manner in which I have thought myself into believing that "I" is merely an existential contraption ever subject to reconfiguration given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas.

Psychologically, I'm down in a hole embedded in what I construe to be an essentially meaningless world that [any day now] will tumble over into the abyss that is the obliteration of "I" for all of eternity.

And then, unlike objectivists of your ilk, I have no capacity to feel comforted and consoled by a frame of mind in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

For your kind, "good" and "evil" are basically expressed in the form of "this I like" and "this I don't like". Either that or whatever it is that you can construct out of words intellectually to keep the profoundly problematic existential factors at bay.

You come up with things like this...

Ecmandu wrote: I find it extremely funny that a fervent subjectivist thinks he's in a hole greater than people who believe in existents!!

...without making any attempt to actually bring the point out into the world of conflicting goods.

What on earth is that supposed to mean, anyway?

Since there is no self, there is no being to observe existents... it's a soft, cozy, warm cacoon for you, where you can distance yourself from any real pain, by avering that it just doesn't exist, because you don't exist.

To be honest though, it's perfectly adapted to get females to have sexual interest with you. So, you make perfect sense as a jerk, trying to get women to like you, evolutionary and all.

You're not in a hole, where for example objectivists who don't want to kill or harm anything are in a hole, you just deny harm itself. To an objectivist, merely looking at a pebble on the ground reminds them traumatically of the zero sum nature of reality, every existent for them is a trauma, but you don't even exist!! LOL!! Oh, how hard that is for you!! You twist the easiest psychology to have into the hardest one... nobody feels sorry for you, because you don't exist!! Grow up!

Ecmandu wrote:Since there is no self, there is no being to observe existents... it's a soft, cozy, warm cacoon for you, where you can distance yourself from any real pain, by avering that it just doesn't exist, because you don't exist.

To be honest though, it's perfectly adapted to get females to have sexual interest with you. So, you make perfect sense as a jerk, trying to get women to like you, evolutionary and all.

You're not in a hole, where for example objectivists who don't want to kill or harm anything are in a hole, you just deny harm itself. To an objectivist, merely looking at a pebble on the ground reminds them traumatically of the zero sum nature of reality, every existent for them is a trauma, but you don't even exist!! LOL!! Oh, how hard that is for you!! You twist the easiest psychology to have into the hardest one... nobody feels sorry for you, because you don't exist!! Grow up!

Since I am now more convinced than ever that you just make this stuff up as you go along, humor me: Why?

Seriously, though, I am never really able to connect the dots between my posts and yours. It's like we are in parallel universes or somethings.

Anyway, when you are ready to bring a value judgment of your own down to earth...to intertwine the experiential and the philosophical components...note a context embedded in conflicting goods and the discussion can continue.

Now, I realize of course that you are convinced that you have already done this. But we are so far out of sync regarding what it means to do this, I doubt we will ever close the gap.

So, all kidding aside, are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

Though, sure, I certainly acknowledge that you and others here might want me to answer the same question.

No, I'm not. But I do repeat myself a lot.

As for the females, that's your obsession not mine. What's wrong, don't they like you?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Ecmandu wrote:Since there is no self, there is no being to observe existents... it's a soft, cozy, warm cacoon for you, where you can distance yourself from any real pain, by avering that it just doesn't exist, because you don't exist.

To be honest though, it's perfectly adapted to get females to have sexual interest with you. So, you make perfect sense as a jerk, trying to get women to like you, evolutionary and all.

You're not in a hole, where for example objectivists who don't want to kill or harm anything are in a hole, you just deny harm itself. To an objectivist, merely looking at a pebble on the ground reminds them traumatically of the zero sum nature of reality, every existent for them is a trauma, but you don't even exist!! LOL!! Oh, how hard that is for you!! You twist the easiest psychology to have into the hardest one... nobody feels sorry for you, because you don't exist!! Grow up!

Since I am now more convinced than ever that you just make this stuff up as you go along, humor me: Why?

Seriously, though, I am never really able to connect the dots between my posts and yours. It's like we are in parallel universes or somethings.

Anyway, when you are ready to bring a value judgment of your own down to earth...to intertwine the experiential and the philosophical components...note a context embedded in conflicting goods and the discussion can continue.

Now, I realize of course that you are convinced that you have already done this. But we are so far out of sync regarding what it means to do this, I doubt we will ever close the gap.

So, all kidding aside, are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

Though, sure, I certainly acknowledge that you and others here might want me to answer the same question.

No, I'm not. But I do repeat myself a lot.

As for the females, that's your obsession not mine. What's wrong, don't they like you?

And it is here that you are concluded just to be a troll. Maybe you're a synthetic philosophy experiment on the population for one world government.

You actually didn't respond to any of the content of my last post as it relates to you. Or much of it at all.

You think consent violation is a "world of words"

You think that having a fragmented self, (there is no self), is harder than having a self (existing with existents)

But where it gets to troll level, we all know you have a self.

The easiest way to get sex with women is to state that you don't exist, through contradictions that are buffered by layers of encryption.